Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 10, pp 2305–2310 | Cite as

Wound Healing after Open Appendectomies in Adult Patients: A Prospective, Randomised Trial Comparing Two Methods of Wound Closure

  • S. Kotaluoto
  • S.-L. Pauniaho
  • M. Helminen
  • H. Kuokkanen
  • T. Rantanen
Article

Abstract

Background

The skin is closed in open appendectomy traditionally with few interrupted nonabsorbable sutures. The use of this old method is based on a suggestion that this technique decreases wound infections. In pediatric surgery, skin closure with running intradermal absorbable sutures has been found to be as safe as nonabsorbable sutures, even in complicated cases. Our purpose was to compare the safety of classic interrupted nonabsorbable skin closure to continuous intradermal absorbable sutures in appendectomy wounds in adult patients.

Methods

A total of 206 adult patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were allocated to the study and prospectively randomized into two groups of wound closure: the interrupted nonabsorbable (NA) suture and the intradermal continuous absorbable (A) suture group. Primary wound healing was controlled on the first postoperative day, at 1 week clinically and after 2 weeks by means of a telephone interview. Follow-up data were obtained from 185 patients (90 in group NA and 95 in group A).

Results

Continuous absorbable intradermal suturing was as safe as nonabsorbable sutures in regard to wound infections.

Conclusion

Continuous, absorbable sutures can be used safely even in complicated appendicectomies without increasing the risk of wound infection. Considering the benefits of absorbable suturing, we recommend this method in all open appendectomies.

Keywords

Appendicitis Wound Closure Absorbable Suture Levobupivacaine Skin Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Piper R, Kager L (1982) Incidence of appendicitis and appendectomy. An epidemiological study of 971 cases. Acta Chir Scand 148(1):45–49Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ohmann C, Franke C, Kraemer M, Yang Q (2002) Status report on epidemiology of acute appendicitis. Chirurg 73(8):769–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurtz RJ, Heimann TM (2001) Comparison of open and laparoscopic treatment of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 182:211–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kehagias I, Karamanakos SN, Panagiotopoulos S et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Which way to go? World J Gastroenterol 14(31):4909–4914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellberg A, Rudberg C, Kullman E (1999) Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 86:48–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McBurney C (1894) IV. The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of a new method of operating. Ann Surg 20:38–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glough JV, Alexander-Williams J (1975) Surgical and economic advantages of polyglycolic-acid suture material in skin closure. Lancet 1(7900):194–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson RG, Cohn WE, Thurer RL, McCarthy JR, Sirois CA, Weintraub RM (1997) Cutaneous closure after cardiac operations. Ann Surg 226(5):606–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rousseau J-A, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L et al (2009) A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:265–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foster GE, Hardy EG, Hardcastle JD (1977) Subcuticular suturing after appendectomy. Lancet 1:1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen BR, Kallehave FL, Andersen HK (2005) Antibiotics versus placebo for prevention of postoperative infection after appendicectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD001439Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serour F, Efrati Y, Klin B et al (1996) Subcuticular skin closure as a standard approach to emergency appendectomy in children: a prospective clinical trial. World J Surg 20:38–42. doi: 10.1007/s002689900007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pauniaho SL, Lahdes-Vasama T, Helminen MT et al (2010) Non-absorbable interrupted versus absorbable continuous skin closure in pediatric appendectomies. Scand J Surg 99(3):142–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Onwuanyi ON, Evbuomwan I (1990) Skin closure during appendicectomy: a controlled clinical trial of subcuticular and interrupted transdermal suture techniques. J R Coll Surg Edinb 35:353–355PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kotaluoto
    • 1
  • S.-L. Pauniaho
    • 2
    • 6
  • M. Helminen
    • 3
    • 4
  • H. Kuokkanen
    • 5
  • T. Rantanen
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Alimentary Tract SurgeryTampere University HospitalTampereFinland
  2. 2.Paediatric Research CentreTampere University and University HospitalTampereFinland
  3. 3.Science CenterPirkanmaa Hospital DistrictTampereFinland
  4. 4.School of Health SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  5. 5.Department of Plastic SurgeryTampere University HospitalTampereFinland
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryCentral Hospital of SeinäjokiSeinäjokiFinland

Personalised recommendations